“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

下列选项中不构成非法经营罪的是（ ）。___

张某违规经营食盐，构成犯罪，并以暴力、威胁方法阻碍行政执法人员依法行使盐业管理职务，应当（  ）。___

钱某使用假印章和变造的保险单与保险人签订保险合同，收取保费。投保人达160人之多，非法收取保费四十余万元，钱某在保险单上留有真实的联系电话，当投保人发生险损，钱某进行了一定的理赔。则钱某的行为表述正确的是（   ）  ___

下列不构成非法经营罪的是（ ）。 ___

下列行为不构成非法经营罪的是（ ）。 ___

以暴力、威胁手段，实施下列行为，不构成强迫交易罪的是（  ）。___

甲驾驶从朋友处借来的小轿车，伪装成出租车，在某火车站拉乘刚下火车的乙去某地。到目的地后，甲要求乙按已做过手脚的计价器显示的69元付钱，乙嫌多不答应，甲便朝乙胸部打了一拳，又给了他一个耳光，无奈，乙交给了甲40元钱。此外，甲又用同样手段作案数起。甲的行为构成（ ）。 ___

律师赵某接受律师事务所指派，为某公司股票上市提供法律意见。赵某在接受该公司的10万元财物之后，提供了虚假的法律意见书，导致不具备上市条件的该公司取得上市资格，严重损害了股东利益。赵某的行为构成（ ）。___

齐某因与胡某有矛盾，欲杀胡某。某夜，齐某趁胡某独自一人在家之机将其杀死，后又从其家中拿走现金2万元。齐某的行为应（  ）。___

张某的次子乙，平时经常因琐事打骂张某。一日，乙与其妻发生争吵，张某过来劝说。乙转而辱骂张某并将其踢倒在地，并掏出身上的水果刀欲刺张某，张某起身逃跑，乙随后紧追。张某的长子甲见状，随手从门口拿起扁担朝乙的颈部打了一下，将乙打昏在地上。张某顺手拿起地上的石头转身回来朝乙的头部猛砸数下，致乙死亡。下列说法正确的是（ ）。___

下列行为不构成故意杀人罪的是（  ）。___

甲在A市杀害乙后，将乙的尸体打成包裹，雇用丙运往B市。甲对丙称是鸦片，答应事后重谢。丙信以为真，在运输过程中被查获。本案中（  ）。___

以下关于犯罪认定正确的是（ ）。___

下列行为不以故意伤害罪论处的是（   ）。___

关于组织出卖人体器官罪，以下说法错误的是（ ）。___

下列行为中，不构成组织出卖人体器官罪的是（  ）。___

李某与医生王某约定，由李某招募、供养器官提供者，王某主刀摘取器官，再由李某出卖，利益五五分成。二人共出卖5个肾脏，分别获利5万元。下列说法正确的是（   ）。 ___

甲女曾被乙女欺骗，带丙男到乙家实施报复，在甲女的帮助下丙男将乙女强奸。甲女的行为（ ）。 ___

李某（男）深夜遇到单身女子王某，起歹意将王某强奸，事后怕王某报案欲杀人灭口，正卡王某脖子时，因有人路过，李某逃离现场，经鉴定王某脖子处构成轻伤。李某的行为属于（  ）。___

王某假冒公安人员，以抓嫖娼为名，强迫卖淫妇女李某与其发生性关系。对王某应当（  ）。___

甲男（15周岁）与乙女（13周岁）在同一所中学上学，二人在参加校文体活动时相识并成为好友，关系日渐密切。某日二人在公园发生性关系时被发现。据甲交代，二人还曾在自己家中发生过一次性关系。甲、乙均表示是双方自愿。经调查二人确属自愿且未造成其他严重后果。甲的行为（  ）。___

某中学女生甲（13周岁）欲购买最新款iphone6s手机，并在网上发帖称自己13周岁，欲出卖初夜。个体老板乙（40周岁）按照甲所留联系方式找到甲，在查看甲身份证后，乙以5000元价格与甲发生了性关系。乙构成（）。___

强制猥亵罪的对象是（）。___

下列行为构成强制猥亵罪的是（ ）。___

甲（男）以暴力威胁丙（男）强行对乙（男）进行猥亵，甲（   ）。___

韩某在向张某催要赌债无果的情况下，纠集好友把张某挟持至自己家，声称如果再不还钱，就砍掉张某一只手，并将张某殴打致重伤。韩某的行为应以（  ）论处。___

以下行为不构成故意伤害罪的是（）。___

贾某欠王某10万元赌债不还，王某就将贾某骗到自己位于郊区的空房中，将门锁上离开。次日，贾某突发心脏病死亡。王某构成（）。___

钱某欠张某3万元钱长期不还。张某不得已将钱某捆绑在自己的空房内，并以拷打等暴力手段逼迫钱某还钱，结果将钱某殴打致死，张某构成（  ）。___

甲欠乙3万元钱长期不还。甲不得已将乙捆绑在自己的空房内，逼迫乙还钱，5日后，乙因心脏病发作加之长期受折磨而死。甲构成（  ）。___

为索取合法债务非法扣押、拘禁他人的，构成（  ）。___

钱某欠张某10万元赌债不还，张某为了索要欠款将钱某捆绑并将其关在一仓库内。为了防止钱某呼救，张某用毛巾将钱某嘴堵住，并将其装入麻袋。次日，张某发现钱某窒息死亡。张某构成（ ）。___

甲将男童乙骗往外地出卖，途中甲多次对乙实施强制猥亵行为。甲尚未将乙卖出便被公安人员抓获。关于甲行为的定性和处罚，下列说法正确的是（ ）。___

收买被拐卖的妇女，强行与其发生性关系的，应当（  ）。___

收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童，非法剥夺、限制其人身自由的，涉嫌（  ）。___

收买被拐卖的儿童，对被买儿童没有虐待行为，不阻碍对其进行解救的，可以（）。___

李某的弟弟30多岁尚未成家，李某花钱从人贩子手中买来一个21周岁的姑娘做弟媳。3个月后，当地的公安机关前来解救该女，李某带领村民堵住警察，不让警察带走该女。李某的行为构成（   ）。 ___

对强迫他人劳动的行为，下列表述正确的是（ ）。___

甲与乙系在某国家机关工作的同事，平时有隙。甲为报复乙，捏造乙受贿5000元的事实，并写成小字报到处散发、张贴，致使乙的名誉受到很大损害。甲的行为（  ）。___

关于刑讯逼供罪的认定，下列选项正确的是（   ）。___